You Put Absolutely NO Thought Into This

[Harry Nevis]

It occurs to me that it doesn't get brought up frequently enough nor strongly enough that apologists' approaches have literally NO thought put into them at all for the most part. So if you happen to be such an apologist/evangelist, maybe reconsider how you go about your shtick if you don't want to come across as entirely thoughtless.

So... no examples just speaking bigotry, stereotypes and prejudice??? Got it.

1. Magic bullet answers. Saying every question's answer is 'gawd' doesn't just come across as intellectually vapid and lazy, it IS intellectually vapid and lazy. It doesn't speak highly about how much respect you have for the intelligence of whomever you're using this on, either.

what is a magic bullet answer?

2. Blaming the victim. Instead of being reasonable and actually critically analyzing your god and its imperfections and lies and failures, you'll inevitably point the finger at us for being sinners, or just unwilling to listen for whatever reason.

If you are willing to reason and listen then why is sin such a big deal?

Nothing will piss someone off quicker than this condescending shit and if you don't understand why, well, you probably wouldn't comprehend it even if it was explained to you (since you wouldn't use that in the first place if you realized how stupid this was.)

Maybe 'pissed off' is apart of the road home. To be pissed off here is to feel you are less or have a short coming in your base morality.. once you can identify that short coming then you can begin to understand God is not even judging people on the sliding moral scale you judge yourself on.
It's ok to be pissed if you do not understand, just don't ignore instruction and clarity when you ask for it.

3. Presenting things that aren't evidence as evidence.

That's the thing sport. Evidence here follows the evidence allowed and identified in a court. While you pretend to only seek scientific evidence. The problem with only seeking known scientific evidence is that it does not allow for anything not already known. In other words unless it is already accepted as evidence, "it not real evidence" or can you not see your little catch 22?

This says that you're too lazy and/or inept to do any actual research of your own which, if this is so fucking important to you, seems like your life ought to revolve around it, and if you believe so strongly in it, surely you must have confidence that you can prove it to an unbeliever.

Actually shift goalposts on what 'evidence' is will ever keep the unbeliever at arm's length. In essence "Evidence" should include personal testimony as any court trial would completely depend on.

But no, it's always someone else's claims that are presented (which are trivially easy to debunk) and it's always something that is either fraudulent, mistaken or simply not anything that in any other context would ever be considered admissible.

Depends on the claim.

But at least the tangible evidence can be disproved, every other piece of pseudo-evidence isn't even worth the breath wasted mentioning it and can be dismissed outright; what was the point, and what were you thinking bringing it up? Oh, right, you weren't thinking.

no tangable evidence are generally dismissed as 'anomalies.' Anomalies in science and in medicine.

I'm too tired to keep going for now but there's bound to be lots more. Just please, stop giving us reasons to think that if a fly flew into one of your ears, it would have no trouble crawling through and coming out the other ear like there was nothing in its way.

when ever where ever sport.

It's like your giving examples of every one of his points.  I love it.